Oracle won their appeal regarding whether APIs are copyrightable. There'll be ongoing argument about whether Google's use of those APIs is fair use or not, and perhaps an appeal to the Supreme Court, but that's the new status quo. This will doubtless result in arguments over whether Oracle's implementation of Linux APIs in Solaris 10 was a violation of copyright or not (and presumably Google are currently checking whether they own any code that Oracle reimplemented), but that's not what I'm going to talk about today.

Oracle own some code called DTrace (Wikipedia has a good overview here - what it actually does isn't especially relevant) that was originally written as part of Solaris. When Solaris was released under the CDDL, so was DTrace. The CDDL is a file-level copyleft license with some restrictions not present in the GPL - as a result, combining GPLed code with CDDLed code will (in the absence of additional permission grants) result in a work that is under an inconsistent license and cannot legally be distributed.

Oracle wanted to make DTrace available for Linux as part of their Unbreakable Linux product. Integrating it directly into the kernel would obviously cause legal issues, so instead they implemented it as a kernel module. The copyright status of kernel modules is somewhat unclear. The GPL covers derivative works, but the definition of derivative works is a function of copyright law and judges. Making use of explicitly exported API may not be sufficient to constitute a derivative work - on the other hand, it might. This is largely untested in court. Oracle appear to believe that they're legitimate, and so have added just enough in-kernel code (and GPLed) to support DTrace, while keeping the CDDLed core of DTrace separate.

The kernel actually has two levels of exposed (non-userspace) API - those exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL() and those exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). Symbols exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() may only be used by modules that claim to be GPLed, with the kernel refusing to load them otherwise. There is no technical limitation on the use of symbols exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL().

(Aside: this should not be interpreted as meaning that modules that only use symbols exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL() will not be considered derivative works. Anything exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is considered by the author to be so fundamental to the kernel that using it would be impossible without creating a derivative work. Using something exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL() may result in the creation of a derivative work. Consult lawyers before attempting to release a non-GPLed Linux kernel module)

DTrace integrates very tightly with the host kernel, and one of the things it needs access to is a high-resolution timer that is guaranteed to monotonically increase. Linux provides one in the form of ktime_get(). Unfortunately for Oracle, ktime_get() is only exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(). Attempting to call it directly from the DTrace module would fail.

Oracle work around this in their (GPLed) kernel abstraction code. A function called dtrace_gethrtimer() simply returns the value of ktime_get(). dtrace_gethrtimer() is exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL() and therefore can be called from the DTrace module.

So, in the face of a technical mechanism designed to enforce the author's beliefs about the copyright status of callers of this function, Oracle deliberately circumvent that technical mechanism by simply re-exporting the same function under a new name. It should be emphasised that calling an EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() function does not inherently cause the caller to become a derivative work of the kernel - it only represents the original author's opinion of whether it would. You'd still need a court case to find out for sure. But if it turns out that the use of ktime_get() does cause a work to become derivative, Oracle would find it fairly difficult to argue that their infringement was accidental.

Of course, as copyright holders of DTrace, Oracle could solve the problem by dual-licensing DTrace under the GPL as well as the CDDL. The fact that they haven't implies that they think there's enough value in keeping it under an incompatible license to risk losing a copyright infringement suit. This might be just the kind of recklessness that Oracle accused Google of back in their last case.